Tuesday, September 12, 2006

a fellow that goes by the name of hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh has decided to hijack a post at bloggerofjared.com to launch a tirade of accusations against me. you can see where it starts here. in order to free up bloggerjared.com, i am offering hhhhhhhh free space to lay out and document whatever he wants to say about me.

oh hell, you can all join in and piss on me if you want.

enjoy!

----------------------------------*update*

apparently i am not even allowed to post a comment on bloggerofjared.com to redirect attacks on me. i tried to invite hhhhhhhhh to move his personal criticisms of me here, but my short invite fell to the scissors of censorship.

*update#2*

after someone else complained, most of hhhhhh's attacks on me have been deleted from bloggerofjared. this post is quickly losing any context.

*update#3*

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh has been gracious enough to grace my blog with his comments. he reminds me of a chihuahua sticking his head out of the purse of some rich old lady and barking with a high-pitched yelp.

Sorry about deleting your link for Mr. H-man. It wasn't my intention to delete your link, but I couldn't stand the diversion from the substance on that thread and leaving just your comment would have been a bit confusing. I actually meant to erase all of H's comments the first time; I just missed one the first time around.

no problem wade. i understand your desire to not want to see the thread hijacked. that's why i told hhhhhhhhhhhhhh to move it here. he's a rather annoying twerp who i've already wasted too much time with. he threw a fit when i got tired with his total irrationality and decided to mirror it with a comment about sex with his mom. he didn't find it as funny as i and others did.

his complaining was largely what got me banned from provopulse. i was wasting way too much time there anyways, so i guess it was for the better.

you seem to have your head screwed on tight, so i got no problems with you. keep up the good work.

By "i and others" you mean "i", right? I think you were the only one laughing at your own joke.

Anyways, I could make up a compilation of your own posts, and maybe I will (not tonight, it's night-night time for me).

I think confronting a person with his/her own comments is the best legal way of keeping tabs on a person's abuse of freedom of speech.

Here I state my accusation: you're making up accusations against BYU, the LDS Church, etc. based on 1) false rumors you got from lds-mormon.org and other flakey sites; 2) fired BYU professors who actively broke their conditions of employment; 3) people with messed-up priorities (Vogel, MinorityFilms, etc); and 4) hours and hours of research on meaningless LDS trivia (this is the saddest one, to invest time in searching for little things and then to come up with accusations out of stuff that not even more knowledgeable people understand). But further, I'm not accussing you of being misled in your sources, but of actively looking for biased information as to feed your enmity.

Also, you were flooding Provopulse with threads on "concerns" about Utah culture (really amusing, I live outside of Utah now, if you think there is dishonesty and under-the-table deals in Utah, oh boy you're not ready for the real world. You better stay in Utah, where you can whine and moan from the comfort of your place).

I don't pretend that Utah is a perfect place, but you condemn overall good people for small stuff or anecdotal offenses. People in Utah are much warmer, sincere, honest and respectful in average than the rest of what I've seen of the world (which spans several countries, states, races/ethnical backgrounds, cultural and economical levels). All the incidences of racism, prejudice, unfair patronage, double standards, cover-ups, etc. you always talk about may exist in Utah (including BYU and the LDS Church) in a microscale, yet you pretend it is an inherent trait of a massively sick society. That is not a different point of view, it's simply dishonesty fed by enmity.

The worst part is that you believe your own dishonesty. It is sad to deceive others, but to deceive oneself is worthy of pity. And now, if you deceive yourself as a by-product of an unrighteous quest (fueled by enmity), well, excuses as "society made me do it" or "this is what personal experience showed me" do not absolve you of personal responsibility.

If he's an annoying twerp, and I'm evil, at what point do you (finally) stop wasting your time on my blog? Or do you forever scratch at the terrible itch?

Until it starts bleeding, then i just start picking at the scab. Evilness and twerpyness are categorically different. I don't think you are a twerp, though I think hhhhhhhhhhhhh is a twerp and evil.

Though not completely cognizant of all your history on Provopulse, I agree with what hhhh posted above.

Glad you found a friend. I got in an argument today with Bryan Horn, the president of the college republicans at UVSC. He believes that if we didn't attack Iraq, we'd all be speaking Arabic today. You guys should be friends as well.

I don't think I'm wrong on what I wrote about the sources for your accusations. I've done a lot of the same research you did myself, and I can't but find that for each "weird" issue about the LDS Church (that you feel so important to bring up), you simply took the worst possible explanation and took off. It would be interesting to me to understand why some little petty vendetta against a bishop or a priesthood instructor in your ward would motivate you to choose the worst possible explanation to something that happened 100+ yrs. ago.

I don't think I am wrong on what I wrote on defense of Utah culture either. And I don't think it takes too much research to find that Utah is actually a place where people usually feel less threatened or criticized than others (I recently moved to a major city in a different state, and I recommend you to never leave Utah, for your own good). I mean, if you have a huge issue with someone who makes an indiscrete remark about someone else's Coke habits, I mean, what can you expect in New York or Dallas, where some people will ruin your career and take over your job just 'cause (yes, it happens there more often than in Utah). The point still stands: you're condemning a large body of overall good people over incidental issues.

Last, again, boy you have deceived yourself. In your pseudo-academic quest, you went looking for the crap in Utah, and you found the crap in Utah. Now you think that's all there is. This is where the word "openminded" becomes a two-edged sword: you've made up your mind about the "evilness of Utah". The series of life experiences you looked for started out with that underlying theme, and, what were the results? Surprise. Now the veredict is in, and Utah has been found guilty. Let's start blogging about Utah's secret sin.

I'll just take your mom joke as you not feeling up to the task of defending yourself, and trying to come up with a cute "let's just laugh about it" alibi that will let you escape looking not-too-bad. As they say, "they should laugh with you, not at you".

i decided when i made this post that i'd let you say whatever you wanted to say about me uncontested.

i'm a jerk who gets tired of and enjoys pointing out the irrationality and stupidity of others' arguments. do you want any more explanations?

as i have told conner and others, my criticisms are not against utah. they are against people like you. i am constantly approached by friends telling me that they have chosen to leave the church... usually because they cannot handle people like you. i often ask myself why i go every week.

if anything, my faith has grown ever stronger the last several months as i have been willing to make stands against those in the church that i feel are perpetuating the very things that are leading my very christlike friends away - friends who are far more civil and kind than me.

you should meet my new friend bryan horn. you, connor, and him could become the bestest of friends.

"I will give you one of the Keys of the mysteries of the Kingdom. It is an eternal principle, that has existed with God from all eternity: That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy; and if he does not repent, will apostatize, as God lives."

in response to "joseph smith, jr.", isn't that comment SCARY?! kind of the "if you're not with us you're against us" attitude of the bush administration? first of all, one does not have to presume ones own righteousness in order to criticize the church, that is to say, just because i may not live the teachings perfectly does not mean i can't critique the teachings. that's like saying because i'm not a dyed in the wool republican, i can't critique its platforms. lame. additionally, if it weren't for people poking and prodding theology and asking the important questions, the church wouldn't be here. it's funny how we revere characters in history for standing up against wrong teachings, but when it happens now, those same actions are viewed negatively. hmmm. i guess this is what distinguishes the samuels from the masses...

That quote has less to do with a with-us-or-against-us attitude, and more to do with just plain pride. If you read the quote carefully, it doesn't imply that you have to be righteous to critique or question the church --quite the opposite. There is plenty of room for questions, discussion, and critique in the church, but you must recognize your own unrighteousness and imperfection while you do so. That's all.

The quote IS scary, but for a different reason. I've seen it proved to be exactly true over and over again. Scary, indeed.

I suppose your crusade is justified if you trample on things sacred to others, provoke and harang, all in the name of truth.

An alternative voice should always be welcomed and listened to, but one that has no respect for the sacred beliefs of others (no matter how misguided they really are), and has an accusatory, belittling tone won't be very effective at all.

I've appreciated the discussion here at times. It's really been refreshing to hear the non-standard thought, especially ideas that I share and agree with.

However the good in this blog is losing credibility when you go out of your way to attack others and make light of divine things.

Was that criticism raised (no pun intended) against me? I do not consider myself to be trampling on things sacred to others. I'm sure I've offended some (that's bound to happen when any form of criticism is brought up), but I really don't believe that I have ever 'trampled' on anything sacred to someone else (at least not intentionally).

As far as hhhhhhhhh's accusations go, yeah I have poked fun at him and others when I feel that they've turned to completely irrational reasoning (an oxymoron?), but I do not believe that I have trampled on his sacred beliefs.

That does not mean I haven't been critical, or even agressively critical, I'm sure I have. However, that occurs when sometimes my sacred beliefs are being defended (which can and will differ from another's).

i kind of agree with both of you. i agree with s.o. that the quote can be a safety check to question your motives. if we are acting because of, or in order to increase, our own self-righteousness, then we are no better than those we are accusing and trying to rise above.

however, i see this quote as oftenly being abused in the way that erin indicates. and this surely seems to be the way that hhhhhhhh is using it (especially in light of his judgements on my faith and testimony).

I really don't believe that I have ever 'trampled' on anything sacred to someone else (at least not intentionally).

I won't pretend to try to know your intentions.

As far as hhhhhhhhh's accusations go, yeah I have poked fun at him and others when I feel that they've turned to completely irrational reasoning (an oxymoron?), but I do not believe that I have trampled on his sacred beliefs.

There's a difference between Socratic dialogue and being an ass. Sometimes I'm not sure which tactic you're employing, and while both are usually received with similar reactions from those you are scolding, one is intellectually weak.

It seems to me that "Throwing up in your own mouth" is the kind of completely irrational argument you claim to be against. It doesn't make sense to respond to irrational argument by deriding them - and you fall prey to your own logic. I know you're smarter than that, because I can read it here in your blog.

I honestly didn't agree with a lot of the things Connor said in those posts either. This is your blog, and you're entitled to express yourself as you will, but don't claim to be more rational than those you ridicule when you post like that.

That does not mean I haven't been critical, or even agressively critical, I'm sure I have. However, that occurs when sometimes my sacred beliefs are being defended (which can and will differ from another's).

You can be very critical while remaining respectful. I realize that we're all human and can get defensive, but its no justification for disrespectfully correcting others, however right you may feel you are (or may really be). Honestly, I think you've been right in places - its just your delivery that wins you enemies and robs your of your credibility.

(for what its worth)

@hhhhhh

You better get yourself in check. If you think you can size up someone else's testimony, personal committment and motives, you seem to have a knack for that which only God can do. Best of luck trying to get your point across (however helpful and true it may be) to someone while calling them an apostate and demanding his repentance. That's sure to earn you brownie points with those you come in contact with.

...don't claim to be more rational than those you ridicule when you post like that.

The point of my 'I had sex with your mom' replies and other irrational attacks is that I'm being irrational. Because irrationality cannot understand rationality, I give up and try respond to irrationality with blatant irrationality. Though, it doesn't always come across for obvious reasons.

Honestly, I think you've been right in places - its just your delivery that wins you enemies and robs your of your credibility.

I have justly received that criticism several times. You are right. I really do need to work on my delivery.

From my interactions with you face-to-face I do know that you care about others feelings and thoughts. I know you would NEVER intentionally trample on someonelse's beliefs. That being said, I completely agree with rasinbread about, well, your attitude, especially your delivery.

Sometimes it's more important to spend your time trying to get at what people are meaning, whether they represent their point "rationally" or not. From what I've read of your online discussions, it seems at times that you are more focused on proving that your opponent isn't using logic than really seeing what they have to say.

So what if they haven't taken courses on courses about philosophy and logic? Don't expect that those you are talking to have. That doesn't mean that what they are trying to tell you is crap. I don't try to talk to you about the details of Food Science and expect you to understand it all, but that doesn't mean that I think you are an idiot that doesn't know anything about the food you eat. That's a weak example, I know, so don't try to pull it apart. Just take it for what it is.

As far as Mr. h is concerned he seems to have the same "picking at the scab" problem, yes it is a problem, that you do. When your discussion degrades from the topic to the person behind the topic your whole interaction becomes pointless. Anyway, I hope you get the intended effect with your post!

i guess you could say that i used to be much more civil in my arguments. built up frustration from the responses may have left me with a short fuse. i learned long ago (but still have a hard time accepting) that for most people, any sort of criticism is almost bound to turn into cries of me trampling on religious beliefs or being faithless. i'm going to write a short post about this.

i don't think down-syndrome people should be laughed at. i think people like you who share their intelligence without actually having a biological mental retardation are free game.

if you don't understand that, here it is in simpler terms:

you are stupid.

that's pretty much what i was saying. that you couldn't understand what i was saying further illustrates your stupidity. you have the intelligence of someone with down-syndrome - but you don't have down-syndrome! and that's why you are funny. yes. that is why everyone is laughing at you when you are not looking.

Since Lloyd is deleting my posts in other threads, it's obvious that he doesn't want my voice in his blog. This is a rather interesting action by someone who protested BYU's cancelling the Free Speech forum ("freeze peach" included), the opposition Moore faced in Happy Valley, and also the previous opposing policy in Sustain'd.

Like Lloyd, "I'll respect his decision to control thought" and I won't come back here (at least for a while ;) ).

I hope that sometime you become able to help someone feel the influence of the Spirit. I'm sure your bishop will, after you tell him he's doing a lousy job (for not saying hi to you), just like you told me you would.

I'm sure confroting new converts with testimonies in need of nourishing, or teenagers struggling with the Gospel, or members in general facing faith crises will find your writings on God-tyrant, Adam-God, polygamy, the Church's "inaccurate" portrayal of its story, your views on blacks and the priesthood, and other questionable doctrines very streghtening and testimony building.

Good bye Lloyd, good luck with your works of love and stregthening others. I'm sure that, when you're older and you have children and grandchildren, and you have a chance to see the effects of your actions on their lives, you'll feel proud and blessed for what you've been doing all this time.

hhhhhhhh: i'm fine with you leaving comments. i just want your comments made in the appropriate posts. the reason why i initially made this post was because bloggerofjared didn't like you hijacking their blog posts.

feel free to comment all you want. just keep them in context of the post. if they diverge too much from the topic, this post is available for your rants and tirades, without any deleting.

Please provide a name or consistent pseudonym with your comments and avoid insults or personal attacks against anyone or any group. All anonymous comments will be immediately deleted. Other comments are subject to deletion at my discretion.

disclaimer

all posts are solely the views, opinions, and facts expressed by the author of project mayhem and do not necessarily represent the opinions and views of blogger, google, the united states of america, any governmental organizations or leaders, claremont graduate university (or any of its centers, departments, or faculty), don knotts, chuck palahniuk, brigham young university, any ancient, medieval, modern, late-modern, or post-modern philosopher, the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints, president thomas s. monson (or any other member of the lds hierarchy), god, jesus, allah, el, yahweh, krishna, mohammed (peace be upon him), brahmann, vishnu, baal, satan, asheroth (or any other deity), the ericson family, the kool-aid man, or any past or future version of myself.